Posted on 06/11/2006 9:51:12 PM PDT by Marius3188
"Have you read any of this thread, or even the whole article? This scientist has fully reconciled his faith with science. He has been a practicing Christian for 30 years, yet has no problem applying the principles of evolution in doing his work.
And incidentally, the theory of evolution is not a "leftist agenda". It's science. It's not political. The strawman that Creationists continually set up and knock down, that the "left" somehow has a huge conspiracy to block religion and morals by teaching science is dishonest, disingenuous, ignorant, and annoying as hell."
I read the article and yes I understand that the scientist has fully reconciled his faith with science. My point is that doesn't jibe with liberals. I was not knocking the scientist.
"I have read of scientists who believe in evolution, but also believe in God. The scientist being discussed on this thread doesn't seem to be trying to disprove evolution. "
[Scotswife, I am not addressing the following to you. You seem to understand!]
HELLO!! All of you Creationists!! Please note this statement! This scientist, who you are attempting to claim as one of your own, IS NOT trying to disprove the scientific theory - in fact, his work supports it! I'm sure the cognitive disonance which must be rattling around your brains must be painful for you. In spite of your best wishes, it is possible to have a faith in God, and still believe science!
Of course.
Many IDists and creationists tend to assume that being in the minority is sufficient evidence of their hypotheses being correct. I just wanted to state that the brilliant scientists on the ID side of the argument are in opposition to the majority, and just as brilliant, scientists on the evolution side.
"Why is it necessary for so many scientists to feel they have no room in their theories for that possibility?"
Because scientists are accustomed to following a specific methodology and a well defined path to verification of their theories. IDists are attempting to circumvent that methodology and wedge their hypotheses into society without developing, testing and attempting to falsify those hypotheses and without publishing their findings in a forum where it can be discussed and reviewed by others trained in the appropriate fields.
In science, hypotheses are tested and when deemed up to snuff they are presented to a group of other scientists *external to the work* who attempt to find problems in the methodology and/or conclusions. In the case of ID, the work done by IDists are not presented in front of a group of scientists eager to tear it apart but in front of an in-group who have no interest in falsifying the work.
Much of the critiques of ID have been the same as would occur within science had the IDists published and presented their work to scientists outside the main ID support group. Because IDists have only presented their work in public forums, the critiques also take place in the public forum.
So far, the work presented by the DI (and other houses of ID) have failed to pass peer review.
I have known a number of scientists who have had their work refused for publication at one time or another because of improper methodology or incorrect conclusions, or have had their work picked apart by other scientists after publication. The only difference between ID and other science work is the forum in which the critiques happen.
The attempt of IDists and creationists to remove or inhibit the teaching of evolution in schools, or to give ID equal billing is a different but related situation.
Those attempting to remove/inhibit evolution are using ID as a tool to cast doubt on the veracity of the SToE. This has nothing to do with the scientific merits of ID but has everything to do with its use as an anti-evolution crowbar.
Those attempting to give ID equal billing to the SToE are encountering the same resistance any hypothesis that hasn't passed peer review would receive. Until the ID proponents have published ID related papers in the appropriate journals and their hypotheses have suffered the 'corrections' of qualified scientists they will not be taken seriously by science. Just to repeat myself; until those hypotheses have shown they can stand on their own, survive criticism and are consequently considered valid, they will not be appropriate to be taught in science class.
Just an interesting note: in one critique of some of Dembski's work, the scientists who wrote the critique actually worked out and suggested a technique that would eliminate some of the inconsistencies found. They didn't just say where Dembski was wrong but suggested a 'fix' for what was wrong.
> I am having a useful discussion...just not with you.
Indeed, because you started off using the old and busted rhetorical tactics of dishonest creationists.
> you would have quit harassing me
You've turned up your "Poor Victimized Me" meter all the way to 11, haven't ya.
Rule # 1, never apologize to a liar or his lying friends just because they lie more.
Where exactly do you believe I have lied? Quote me, and explain the falsehood you think you see in what I have written.
Or, feel free to apologize for your own dishonesty against me -- if you have any honor whatsoever.
You should mention that it isn't the bases A,T,C,G that are covalently bonded to each other but the nucleotides that are bonded.
Correct, correct, correct! There are countless scientists who believe in evolution AND God (and are Christian), including the one being discussed (and misrepresented - see TheCrusader's post # 348) here. And it is also correct that the Theory of Evolution doesn't make any claims about the origin of life, simply the mechanisms which bring about its diversity.
How do they present non-science as science?
That's a LONG answer, but watch these threads and you'll see. Misrepresenting quotes, or any other bit of information, from scientists is very popular. Outright lying also occurs. It is most unfortunate that such devious behavior characterizes this group, which tends to give non-Christians an unfavorable view of Christianity. St. Augustine had some interesting things to say about this very thing, but I don't have the quote handy, although perhaps someone reading this does...? There are many very smart people involved in these threads (I've noticed you having a discussion with one of them), some scientists, and most of them are more than happy to answer questions, about science in general or their respective fields of expertise. I am unsure how many of them belong to The Great Conspiracy To Rid Society of Religion though...
It appears that many scientists do have an antagonistic attitude towards the possibility of God being involved.
I understand why you are asking this, but I disagree with the premise. I really don't believe that it is an antagonism towards God, or the possibility of God. It is, rather, antagonism towards the insulting, deceptive, willfully ignorant, weak-faithed zealots (oxymoronic as it sounds) who continue to assault the people and ideas of science.
I've seen "the other side" try to both claim that there IS no war between science and religion, and also claim that said war is the fault of "evolutionists". But just look at the facts: one side has scientists AND believers, in large numbers, and often in the same person. The other is composed entirely of fundamentalists (of many different religions). If science WAS biased against, or atagonistic towards, the faithful (and there are plenty of first-hand accounts to the contrary on this thread alone), I'm sure there would be far less scientists-of-faith than there are.
For what it's worth, I hope you stick around and observe the discussions on these threads with an objective eye. Yes, tempers sometimes flare, but you can get some very useful information, from both sides, that might clarify your belief.
Oops, yes.
I shake my head at the way grownups will misbehave in public when denouncing the heathen.
That is true. Although the scientist this thread is about is not an IDist, the arguments you originally put forward about 'code' and information are primarily IDist concepts and they are the ones who originally put them forward as anti-evolutionary ideas. We can't discuss the validity of those ideas without including their origin.
"How do they present non-science as science?
As explained in my earlier posts, the concepts of ID are not science because they fail to adhere to the basic methodology and its inherent checks and balances. ID, and its anti-evolutionary concepts of CSI and ICS, is not science but is presented as science in the media and on campuses by its adherents.
Non-ID 'Religious Science' is also not science but for a different reason. Those that practice 'Religious Science' are more interested in changing the evidence to fit a preconceived idea of what is necessary to support their hypothesis than in correcting their hypothesis to reflect the evidence.
In contrast, those scientists who are religious but are careful to separate their beliefs from their work and follow current scientific methodology are true scientists that contribute much to our understanding of the natural world.
"It appears that many scientists do have an antagonistic attitude towards the possibility of God being involved.
It is true that the percentage of atheists and agnostics is higher in science than in general society but their numbers are still in the minority. Those few atheistic scientists who denigrate religions are highly vocal and thus highly visible.
The vast majority of scientists are not antagonistic towards a 'ghost in the machine' but simply state that science cannot address the supernatural because the supernatural removes necessary constraints and consistencies of cause. Anything that can intentionally ignore the those consistencies of nature we label as 'laws' makes testing impossible so needs to be removed from consideration. The supernatural, especially if omnipotent, cannot be falsified.
Sad and ironic, since science in the West sprang directly from Church teaching. The Origin of Science.
It appeared you were headed in that direction and I wanted you to reconsider the connection between a human analogy and the reality.
Even in this statement you have injected a bit of anthropomorphization through the analog of 'the instruction manual'. If you have the understanding that it is an analogy to the process and not the cause then this is fine, but if you drag along the need for an author as a necessary property of an instruction manual with that analogy then you are incorrect.
Since I cannot read your mind I have to infer your intent (and direction) from previous posts.
You stated in post #286:
No. "What DNA does" is to replicate itself. Building living organisms is just a means to that end, sort of a side effect.
All Scotswife did was ask you to explain (and I too was interested in your response) what you meant by "side effect".
All you've done since then is to protest & evade - accusing her of doing what in fact you were doing.
I'd call you a jerk - but whats the point...
While Orionblamblam did conclude too hastily that scotswife was intentionally using a straw man argument (and it *was* a classic straw man argument typically used by anti-evolutionists as a red herring, even if scotswife didn't realize it or intend it that way), I don't see that he "evaded" anything, it's just that the conversation rapidly went off on a tangent and both participants kept hammering at the tangent more than the original point of discussion.
What he means by organisms being a "side effect" of DNA replication is that evolutionary processes shape DNA to whatever configuration enhances the replication of that DNA. It's illustrative, and not entirely inaccurate, to say that organisms are vehicles which DNA constructs in order to make more DNA. Sort of like the old saying, "a chicken is an egg's way of making another egg."
It's amusing in the chicken aphorism because the relationship is balanced -- eggs produce chickens, and chickens produce eggs. There's no particular reason to choose one view over the other, other than convention, which is turned upside-down to amusing effect in the saying about chickens/eggs.
But in the case of DNA and the organisms they produce, that's not the case. DNA produces the organism, but the ogranism does not itself produce the DNA in turn -- the DNA also produces more of *itself*, albeit in an environment shaped by the organism, but again that is sourced back to the DNA. The DNA is the "driver", the organism is the vehicle. Thus the observation that organisms are DNA's way of producing more DNA.
> I'd call you a jerk
How wonderful for you.
> What he means by organisms being a "side effect" of DNA replication is that evolutionary processes shape DNA to whatever configuration enhances the replication of that DNA. It's illustrative, and not entirely inaccurate, to say that organisms are vehicles which DNA constructs in order to make more DNA.
Well said. Bravo.
What is the meaning of life? It is to reproduce one's DNA. That's it.
> It's amusing in the chicken aphorism because the relationship is balanced -- eggs produce chickens, and chickens produce eggs. There's no particular reason to choose one view over the other,
I disagree: theropods, and reptiles before them, and amphibians before *them*, were laying eggs not only long before there were chickens, but before there were *birds.* Thus, the egg came before the chicken.
> Thus the observation that organisms are DNA's way of producing more DNA.
Yep. Long *long* ago, back when the oceans were "primordial soup," DNA did not need organisms to reproduce. The raw material in the forms of proteins and amino acids were floating around in some considerable easy abundance. But as this material started getting used up, those bits of DNA that had by chance become more complex such as to form primitive proto-life, had the better chance of snagging resources... including by simple chemical predation. And then the race was on.
Let's just for fun mention that egg evolution was necessary for the conquest of land environments. Amphibian and fish eggs must be laid in water. Reptile eggs developed an extra sheath, the amnion, with an extra fluid layer around the old amphibian egg structure. This freed their adult forms from having to stay close to a body of water for egg-laying purposes. Of course, while they were at it, the reptile eggs also evolved a rather different-looking adult form from what they'd had as amphibians.
A scientists faith in the lord debunks all scientific theory that God did not play a role in the creation of man or animal.
That's not a scientific theory, that's faith.
And he still supports evolution. So I don't know what your point is.
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]
Powerful stuff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.